The Question Of Justice

Running head: THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE 1

The Question of Justice

Name

Institution

THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE 2

The Question of Justice

The distribution of ‘natural assets’/social goods has been a topic of discussion in both the

and 21

centuries. Some people argue that governments should take wealth from the people

with high ranks in the society and give the poor, while others believe that the government should

consider taking wealth from those who acquired it unjustly and give to the people. Therefore, the

question on the just way to distribute these social goods arises. Two philosophers, John Rawls

and Robert Nozick have different answers to this question. This paper identifies Nozick’s

position on the distribution of social goods be more defensible, describes his view, discusses

Rawls’ objection to the view, and states ways in which Nozick would respond to Rawls’

objection.

Description of Robert Nozick’s View

According to Robert Nozick’s view on the distribution of social goods, the attainment of

justice involves three major ideas that are justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and rectifying

injustice (Corlett, 1991). Therefore, according to this view, the whole process of distribution is

considered to determine whether it was just or not. When the acquisition of social goods is done

in accordance with the principles of justice then the social goods are just. It means that when one

acquires an item that is unheld in a society then the acquisition is entitled and just. He believes

that the same applies to the transfer of social goods (Corlett, 1991). If the transfer is just, the

resulting situation would also be just. However, in a case where there was injustice involved,

then there would be a need for the rectification of the injustice. The injustice can be in form of

violations in the transfer or acquisition of the social goods.

John Rawls’ Objection to the View

THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE 3

According to Rawls, Nozick’s view is controversial since it justifies the unequal

distribution of social goods in a society and this does not respect the social goods that are

deserved or needed by a given faction of the society (Corlett, 1991). In particular, Rawls objects

the idea of property rights by Nozick that supports the social goods or properties owned by

different people. According to Rawls, most of the social goods that people possess result from

their natural talents and social position, aspects that are morally arbitrary (Rawls, 2009). It means

that if any inequalities arise in these ownerships, then they are unjust. Moreover, the principles of

justice need to be considered first before the rights of people to social goods.

How Robert Nozick would respond to the Objection

Considering Rawls’ objection, Nozick would respond that justice involves respecting the

natural rights of people. These rights include the right to self-ownership and right to property. At

the individual level, each person is separate and it is important to respect their autonomy.

Therefore, people cannot be used in ways that they do not accept such as taking their property

and giving others. It means that the rights of these individuals will be violated. Moreover, the

abilities and talents of people are their rights and these belong to them, therefore, every

individual can decide to either keep these talents or use them for gain (Corlett, 1991). The

redistribution of their social goods, which are results of their talents and abilities, shows

disrespect for their autonomy.

In conclusion, the distribution of social goods and the question of justice have been

debated and two twentieth-century philosophers, John Rawls and Robert Nozick have different

views on the same. Considering their views, Robert Nozick’s is more defensible than Rawls’.

According to Robert Nozick’s view, the attainment of justice involves three major ideas that are

justice in acquisition, justice in transfer, and rectifying injustice. Rawls objects this view by

THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE 4

stating that it promotes inequality and considering the resources in Nozick’s view, he would

respond by emphasizing on respecting the autonomy of other people.

THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE 5

References

Corlett, J. A. (1991). Equality and liberty: Analyzing Rawls and Nozick. London: Macmillan.

Rawls, P. J. (2009). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Belknap Press.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."